TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the same are being decided by this common order. 2. The period in dispute are years 2009-10 to 2010-2011 [for recovery of interest], 2011-12 [demand u/r.3(5B) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 alongwith interest] and also the years 2015- 16 to 2016-17 [demand not quantified] alongwith penalty. To put it simply, for the years 2009-10 to 2010-11 interest was demanded from the appellants and for the periods 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 revenue has proposed the reversal of Cenvat credit or equivalent duty u/r. 3(5B) ibid. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of glass fiber, chopped strand mats, roving of glass fiber etc. and availing Cenvat credit in respect of inputs, capital goods and input services used in relation to manufacture of final pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial years and the inventory in question were used subsequently in manufacturing process and cleared on payment of excise duty and therefore Rule 3(5B) has not application. In support of his submission learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of CCE vs. Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd.; 2014(300)ELT 347 (Guj.). He further submits that the Revenue cannot ask for any interest from them as the same was not there in the statute during the years 2009-11. Per contra learned Authorised Representative appearing for Revenue supported the findings recorded by the authority below and submits that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim/submissions and there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d input or capital goods is subsequently used in the manufacture of final products or the provision of output services, the manufacturer or output service provider, as the case may be, shall be entitled to take the credit of the amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit paid earlier subject to the other provisions of these Rules. Explanation.- If the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service fails to pay the amount payable under sub-rules (5), (5A) and (5B), it shall be recovered, in the manner as provided in rule 14 for recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken." 5. The provision of Rule 3(5B) covers the situation where the value of the inputs or capital goods is written off fully or partially before being put to use. Therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;ble High Court therein while referring to Rule (5B) ibid, in para 20 had observed that on the basis of such statutory provision, it may be open for the Department to insist on reversal of Cenvat Credit under similar circumstances. Admittedly in the instant matter Rule 3(5B) ibid itself provides for reversal when the capital goods, on which Cenvat credit has been taken, are not put to use and the total amount related to those goods is written off fully or partially. Otherwise also in that order of the Tribunal for the years 2013-14, which has been cited by learned Counsel, no such objection about insufficiency of documentary proof has been raised by Revenue. 6. Although it has been submitted by learned Counsel that inventory in issue were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g these stores or selling on discharge of payment of duty. On a specific query form the Bench as to whether evidence was produced before the lower authorities, learned counsel submits that this evidence was not produced before the authorities. Since the entire issue revolves around the appreciation of the factual matrix whether the said obsolete stock was used and written back into the records, on being sold on discharge of payment of duty needs to be verified from the records, which my considered view, better be left to the adjudicating authority to do so." [Emphasis supplied]. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the matter was remanded for the specific purpose of enabling the appellant to produce evidence before the adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... document. The SAP entry, as per the learned counsel, itself shows the intention to use such disputed items in manufacturing process subsequently but as per the Tribunal's order dated 19.12.2017 the appellant was required to show, to the adjudicating authority, from the records that the obsolete stock was used and written back into the records on being sold on discharge of payment of duty. The appellant are under obligation to produce documentary evidence before the adjudicating authority as per the order (supra) of this Tribunal, which they failed to produce. 9. Similarly another periodical show cause notice dated 18.6.2018 pertaining to years 2015-16 and 2016-17 was issued to the for denial of an amount of Rs.38,13,454/- and recovery of ....